Freethought & Rationalism Archive

neilgodfrey · 02-14-2008, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

So I think of two possibilities:

A Marcionite evangelist is drawing in part from Mark, which is in large part alien to Marcionite thought. (John Baptist role throughout, Jewish Scripture prophecies and fulfilments, adoptionism, . . .)

Mark is composed as a new gospel afresh, agreeing with only some aspects of Marcionite thought.

The later orthodox redactor of Marcion's Luke was also the one who wrote Acts. The agenda was both anti-Marcionite and catholic. It drew on "many" who had written before, including Mark and John.

Could you clarify which is possibility one and which is possibility two ?
I'm not quite clear.

IF you are suggesting that possibly Marcion's Luke had no significant parallels to Mark and that it was only with the orthodox redaction of Luke that Mark was used, then there are problems.

Some scholars have suggested an early form of Luke (proto-Luke) without the Marcan based passages, the Markan passages being added in a later revision. However, from what we know of Marcion's Luke it wasn't proto-Luke in that sense, it contained far too much Markan type material.

Andrew Criddle

Not ignoring your question. Have been away a couple of days and want to refresh my mind with the details before responding.

Cheers,
N

neilgodfrey · 02-14-2008, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

So I think of two possibilities:

A Marcionite evangelist is drawing in part from Mark, which is in large part alien to Marcionite thought. (John Baptist role throughout, Jewish Scripture prophecies and fulfilments, adoptionism, . . .)

Mark is composed as a new gospel afresh, agreeing with only some aspects of Marcionite thought.

The later orthodox redactor of Marcion's Luke was also the one who wrote Acts. The agenda was both anti-Marcionite and catholic. It drew on "many" who had written before, including Mark and John.

Could you clarify which is possibility one and which is possibility two ?
I'm not quite clear.

IF you are suggesting that possibly Marcion's Luke had no significant parallels to Mark and that it was only with the orthodox redaction of Luke that Mark was used, then there are problems.

Some scholars have suggested an early form of Luke (proto-Luke) without the Marcan based passages, the Markan passages being added in a later revision. However, from what we know of Marcion's Luke it wasn't proto-Luke in that sense, it contained far too much Markan type material.

Andrew Criddle

Re your first IF, are you thinking of the problems of Marcion's gospel having parallel material with Mark? I don't doubt parallel material, such as the anti-twelve theme and basic plot structure.

Tyson argued for a pre-Marcionite gospel, similar to Luke 3-23, that appeared after Mark but, well, being pre-Marcionite, before Marcion's gospel. It was this pre-M gospel that Marcion "probably" used as the basis of his own gospel, excising significant portions of it. It was on this basis that he was charged with mutilating Luke. Canonical Luke was "almost certainly" based on this pre-Marcionite gospel, with special material added. His preface probably refers to (and subtly diminishes) Mark, the pre-Marcionite gospel and Marcion's gospel. Tyson sees him reworking his sources to create the literary unity it now has, along with Acts, to form a trenchant rebuttal of Marcionism.

andrewcriddle · 02-16-2008, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Re your first IF, are you thinking of the problems of Marcion's gospel having parallel material with Mark? I don't doubt parallel material, such as the anti-twelve theme and basic plot structure.

There are specific things like the Transfiguration in Marcion's Luke see http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/librar...n/Gospel2.html which primafacie come from Mark.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 02-18-2008, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Re your first IF, are you thinking of the problems of Marcion's gospel having parallel material with Mark? I don't doubt parallel material, such as the anti-twelve theme and basic plot structure.

There are specific things like the Transfiguration in Marcion's Luke see http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/librar...n/Gospel2.html which primafacie come from Mark.

Andrew Criddle

Hi Neil

My point was that Marcion's Gospel appears to have had
an account of the transfiguration similar to that in the
canonical synoptic Gospels.

If so, (and I'll try and dig out the evidence if you want),
it would amount to a strong agreement between all three of,
Marcion's Gospel, canonical Luke and canonical Mark. The
simplest explanation is that Marcion's Gospel as well as
canonical Luke have borrowed here from (more or less)
canonical Mark.

I could I believe find other similar examples.

This indicates IMO that canonical Luke and Marcion's
Gospel shared not only a general similarity in outline
to Mark but also have both incorporated specific
pericopes from Mark, whereas IIUC you were
suggesting that the parallels between Marcion's
Gospel and Mark may have only amounted to a
similarity in broad outline.

Andrew Criddle

(I hope Neil won't mind me replying here to his private email about my post. My attempts to reply to him by email have failed.)

schilling.klaus · 02-18-2008, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Klaus, would you be able to some data/links regarding the vocabulary of the alleged interpolated Pauline texts?

Also, anyone here have the reconstructed Marcion "Romans"?

H. Detering's work concerning the Marcionite origin of Romans is found at http://www.radikalkritik.de , but all in German and not yet complete, especially the bibliography is missing.

Klaus Schilling

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.